Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Pakistan. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Pakistan|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Pakistan. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Asia.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

Pakistan

[edit]

Sara Mohmand

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sara Mohmand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails relevant notability guidelines (GNG, SIGCOV and NBAD). zglph•talk• 05:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Alam

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Emma Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is very promotional, and there are major issues of blatant self-promotion. It has been already deleted once https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emma_Alam, and it was created again by an editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abishe which is now partially blocked especially due to problematic article creations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170#Abishe's_problematic_article_creations. Lastly, after an online search, there is no independent coverage to justify WP:GNG, with a lot of promo-like sources. Chiserc (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. - I support with the nominator's comments to delete the article since I agree the content does not fall under the purview of neutral point of view.
  • First of all, I would like to share that I am a nerd guy who is eager to spread and gain general knowledge. I have seen people commenting about whether I have connections with the said individuals that prompt me to create Wikipedia articles about them. I am definitely not into that practice of PR strategies to promote the individuals. I understand it's my fault for my writing style leaning towards puffery and I apologise for that. Please give me another opportunity to prove myself again that I can resurrect myself to contribute without deviating from the editing guidelines. I have given my heart and soul to this platform solely for genuine purposes and not for any intentions. I have a passion to write articles since I like to gain the self satisfaction that many people around the world would get to read my articles. This was a way I chose to share my love and passion, but unfortunately I am banned because only the downsides of my writing style has been exaggerated. I do agree I have to correct my mistakes and I have done mistakes in the past. But, who hasn't done mistakes in this universe. Why I shouldn't be given another chance to prove my worth. Unfortunately, not just Wikipedians, even those who know me in person would tell me that I am difficult to understand as a human being since I have the habit to take discussions on various interests which many people are not much interested to listen. I understand that every individual is different from each other so I should understand prior to communicating with people based on their interests.
  • I am 100% happy with this article to be deleted and I have no hesitation for it. Please don't consider me as a perpetrator. I have tried to invigorate my interest in knowing about different fields to apply the learnings in real life situations and we only get one life to explore this world and this is why I am pushing for my ban to get reverted. I am not trying to act here as self-centered or as a person who is entitled to the privileges. I am speaking for myself as I was disappointed that no editor came in support or defense of me at least in my user talk page as I realised this is the reality of life. I understood that no matter how many good initiatives we do, the mistakes we make are highlighted and people do only remember the errors we make and we are not remembered for the efforts. I am not trying to criticise anyone here as this is the unwritten law of life, but shouldn't I deserve another chance to come back to this platform which I truly admire. Even this world has forgotten the humanitarian services of philanthropists like Jonas Salk who pioneered to distribute the polio vaccines to everyone without profiting from his own invention by refusing to patent the polio vaccine. Is this the end of me in Wikipedia? Won't I be getting another opportunity to showcase my potential. I don't use ChatGPT to write articles and I genuinely possess lot of knowledge and English language skills to write content. We as humans have more capabilities to write quality articles than whatever garbage and half-baked ideas generated by AI and ChatGPT. I am writing this solely from the bottom of my heart which is gut wrenching. If I had an artificial heart just like how some people had told me that my brain is running similar to an artificial intelligence, I may not have elaborated with a human touch and sentiment like this. If I had artificial heart implanted in my body designed by Robert Jarvik, I wouldn't have been able to portray my genuine feelings. Abishe (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Saeed

[edit]
Anil Saeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV found. Arbaz Thakur (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izhaar Malihabadi

[edit]
Izhaar Malihabadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draftify - this has been returned to Draft previously, so WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. I would have returned to Draft myself, but may not; it requires consensus. I see scope for potential notability under WP:NPOET, but not as written and as referenced. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Ali Memon

[edit]
Asad Ali Memon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have looked at the sources currently in this BLP about a mountaineer, and don't see WP:THREE good sources to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. I have a source assessment table which I will add below, but, in summary, most of the sources depend on Memon's social media. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found RS to add. I may be missing coverage in other languages. I acknowledge also that the draft was accepted through AFC and that an uninvolved editor on the article's Talk page says that the subject is notable. Tacyarg (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding source table. Tacyarg (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are mistaken on the independence requirement for the GNG. It is not that the information presented in the article has to be gathered in some arbitrary way, but that the work is not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Because none of these articles were written by the subject of the article or anyone closely related to him, they are all independent of the subject. The point of the independence criterion is to exclude "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". See also WP:IIS Katzrockso (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Katzrockso. I take your point that of course ultimately the information will come from the subject or someone close to him in some way - but in these cases the content of some of the news articles is literally Instagram or Twitter posts. Tacyarg (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Based on press release. Discussed at RSN, no consensus No Mostly about an institution he attended (IoBM, see below). ✘ No
Dawn 2023
 No Based on an interview with Memon. Yes Yes ✘ No
No Memon is a former student No Commercial institution No Mostly about the institution ✘ No
Yes No No editorial policy; another editor at RSN thought not reliable Yes ✘ No
No Based on information from Memon's team Yes Discussed at RSN, and it looks as if the consensus was generally reliable on uncontroversial topics Yes ✘ No
Dawn 2024
 Yes Based on information from Memon's team Yes No Two sentences about a flag Memon put up at a shop ✘ No
No Based on information from Memon's Twitter and the Pakistani Embassy No consensus at RSN Yes ✘ No
No Based on information from Memon's Twitter and the Pakistani Embassy Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes Based on information from Express News (TV channel) Yes No discussion of Express News at RSN; no reason to think it's not reliable Yes ✔ Yes
No Based on information from Memon's Instagram No byline, and the About at ARY News doesn't mention editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
Yes No byline, and the About at Hum News doesn't mention editorial oversight Full article, but only four sentences. Says "More to follow", but I can't see another article ? Unknown
No Based on information from Memon's Instagram Has a byline, but I can't find an editorial policy. Discussion at RSN, but I don't see a consensus Yes ✘ No
No Based on information from Memon Has a byline, but the About at Geo Super doesn't mention editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
Looks like it's based on information from Memon: "Reflecting on his success, Memon ... " Discussed at RSN, no consensus Full article, but only six sentences ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the source analysis provided by Tacyarg. First off, the nominator mis-represents WP:THREE, an WP:ESSAY, as being a requirement of GNG. The 2023 Express Tribune reference is a clear GNG pass. Further, the 2025 Express Tribune, the Hym News, and the 2024 Dawn article are borderline/okay. Those three references provide an additional 12 sentences of coverage of the subject. Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 19:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing this as No consensus but decided on one more Relist. Except for the argument by Frank Anchor, the Keeps are weak here and do a poor job of responding to this source assessment table with only vague comments about good sources. Can you be more specific why you don't find this analysis convincing? Saying that there are "enough sources" when a table says there are not is not a persuasive argument that you have done a good job evaluating sources. Point out where you disagree.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hussainabad (Sindh)

[edit]
Hussainabad (Sindh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N 0xReflektor (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WHAC GrinningIodize (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong link, was looking for WP:SFOD. GrinningIodize (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The real issue, as is one of the two common cases in the geo-AfDs, is what the place actually is. The maps shows an area within Hyderabad city; the article calls it a "town". Which is it? Nothing that is said in the article precludes it just being an NN city neighborhood. Is "town" here an actual governmental designation? Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There had been a confusion between a village in Sujawal and a zone in the city of Hyderabad, both in Sindh, both on the Indus River. See page.  Fixed e.ux 09:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to the confusion the old name of the location -see 1884 source on the page and another one I had added (see p. history)- is Gid(d)u Bandar, which is also the officious name given to Cowasjee Jehangir Institute of Psychiatry -Pakistan's oldest mental hospital, [1] seems to be in Latifabad not Hussainabad (although very close). Unless it's located across their limit. e.ux 09:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://doam.gov.pk/public/sites/5646
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reason as @Rupples KashanAbbas (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legally recognised, populated place under WP:NPLACE. Hussainabad has been designated a Town Municipal Corporation, one of 9 in Hyderabad District, Sindh. The district has in recent years been restructured.[1][2], which has likely caused the confusion over Hussainabad's status. Gidu Bandar seems to be more of a historical name. On page 234 of this gazetteer,[3] Gidu-Bandar is noted as one of the "chief towns" in Hyderabad Taluka and on other pages is mentioned in connection with submarine cables across the Indus to Kotri, an aerial electric telegraph, a daily ferry and a school. Perhaps the article is better titled Hussainabad, Hyderabad district? (Rupples (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what does this mean? We don't have an article that addresses this level of governmental hierarchy, and we're back to "is it part of the city as a whole or not?" What can be said about it? There's no demographics, and everything seems to be implying that it is a town sitting in majestic isolation, which is plainly not the case. Why does this need its own article? Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question of WP:PAGEDECIDE, not notability.
These "municipal committees" (not a neighborhood as our article suggests....) are an increasing form of municipal governance in Pakistan [4], that we don't have an article on them is probably an issue with Wikipedia falling behind on this topic area, not evidence that there is nothing useful to say here. These councils have their own assemblies and contrary to your assertion, we can find demographic statistics for them (in 2022 it was 232,270 [5]). I think a legally recognized level of local governance with over 200,000 people is notable!!
These TMCs are composed of UCs (union committees - perhaps more accurately described as neighborhoods) that elect representatives to local government bodies. See e.g. "PPP’s Istehsan Barkat won seat of chairman of UC-125, Hussainabad TMC" [6]. The TMC is basically a form of local government, the relevant law is the Sindh Local Government Act 2013 ([7]).
From what I see, there are 45 TMCs in Sindh [8] and they appear to have populations over 100,000. There are similar in some aspects to New York City's city council districts, of which we rightfully have an article for all 51.
Strong keep. Katzrockso (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware we had articles on councilmanic districts, and I'm quite dubious about the "rightfully", but I'm not going to continue disputation about this article. I am going to continue to complain that we have far too many of these geography stubs where we're basically being expected to research the article in the course of the AfD because the original author didn't bother. It may be what WP:BEFORE demands, which is why I'm strongly tempted to dump the whole thing over and let the crap remain unexamined. Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Files for deletion

[edit]

Category discussion debates

[edit]

Template discussion debates

[edit]

Redirects for deletion

[edit]

MfD discussion debates

[edit]

Other deletion discussions

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Pakistan&oldid=1320475460"